Apple Announces Major Update to Mac Mini with up to 6 Cores, 64GB RAM, and 10GBE.

[Thomas Smet]

There's now a Blackmagic eGPU Pro with an RX Vega 56 in it. https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMQT2VC/A/blackmagic-egpu-pro

Yes which is finally a step in the right direction. Not entirely sure how much performance it would add over the rx580 in the iMac but hopefully somebody will test it out soon.

We have also been able to build a eGPU with the Vega 56 and 64 now for some time but the price was very high. The performance advantage really needs to be there to justify the extra cost of the Vega. This is why the top iMac is in an odd position. The GPU is good enough in the middle where it is harder to justify a eGPU right now even if one were to move to a Vega. Any lower GPU option should justify the Vega GPU but the 580 is fast enough where it becomes harder to justify the $1,200 cost to shave off a little bit of render time. It’s a bit like owning a gtx1070 in a PC and upgrading to the 1080. Yeah it’s an upgrade but was is really worth the cost?

I just don’t know enough about the performance gains of the Vega right now so maybe it really is a massive difference compared to the 580.

 

[Barry_Green]

Massively overpriced as always with Apple. I'll start a new thread soon where will show how Apple is literally scamming us for biggest possible profit.

Great! Please let me know what you're charging for a Mac Mini, using all the same components, and with a genuine copy of the latest operating system and all apps, and with a warranty at least as good as Apple's. Where can I buy this at your super-discounted price (as opposed to Apple's "massively overpriced" price?)

 

[Benjobe]

I don’t think I’ve ever had a Mac “break beyond repair” in the decades I’ve been using Mac hardware.

This is off topic to the thread, but since many people have shared their positive experiences with Apple hardware and support, I'd like to share a very different experience.

In 2008 I purchased a Macbook Pro 17" for video editing. At the time I was a FCP7 user and the MBP did a nice job editing SD footage (it struggled a bit with HD). Anyways, I had no problems with it until December 2012 when suddenly the screen died. It would boot up but the screen would remain completely black. I called Apple Support and they said "Oh yes, those models have a known problem with the GPU, and we extended the warranty for this specific problem. However, that extended warranty ended last week. Sorry. We can't do anything to help you." That seriously pissed me off. I asked to speak to their supervisor, but he said the same thing. In the end they suggested that I go to a third-party Apple Repair/Retail store to have my hard drive cloned so that I could save all my data. But I had to pay for that service myself, which was $200.

I ended up selling the MBP on Ebay for spare parts. I think I got $50 for it. It was a hard pill to swallow.

But on the other hand, whenever my iPhone breaks I get a new one mailed to me within a week of calling Apple Support. So again, I think their priorities are more focused on phones than pro hardware. But that's just my experience. YMMV

On the other hand, I have a 2005 Dell Inspiron 17" running Windows XP that still boots up whenever I want to this day. Occassionally I'll boot it up just to feel like I'm time traveling back to my younger days.

Now, back on thread topic, I'm very interested in the new Vega 56 eGPU as a possible upgrade to my 2015 iMac, especially if it greatly enhances performance of DaVinci Resolve. I hope BareFeats.com runs a comparison of that in Nov.

Oh, and here's a link to that extended warranty that I missed by only a few days. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203254

 

[Vultch]

Last year my 2011 iMacs video card died, I thought ah well it was a good run. I took it to my local Apple store. They told me there was a recall on my video card but they had missed me. I got a full repair free.
The machine is still in use, cutting projects and doing some motion graphics stuff. I looked at the new MacPro, it's interesting but I hope to see a new iMac with the new 6 core processor as used in the MBP
Superb service from Apple.

 

[El Director]

My experience with Apple is much like Benjobe's. I've had two Macbook Pros. Both ended up with the same issue (display problems) and both issues occurred just after it was out of warranty. Apple told me to piss off. At home, I run a Windows workstation for editing and two Fedora laptops for personal use. Haven't any issues with any of them. At work, I'm forced to use the most expensive trashcan Apple makes and it barely gets by with 4K compositing in Nuke. Yeah, the one that costs around $8K. And oh, there's no eGPU support for it if you want to run the latest OS. So my hardware is five years old and my OS is two years past due. You can easily build a more capable and configurable computer for $3000 using better parts. And frankly, more stable. It takes me around five minutes to try to get the trashcan to turn on. It's quite sad, really. I understand people have brand loyalty to Apple, that's fine. But Apple doesn't seem to care about their power users anymore. They need to quit stringing industry professionals along and just focus on consumer products like the iMac, iPhone and iPad.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I always like to see Apple’s computer updates but, much like the iPhone, I’ve often been disappointed to see only minor tweaks rather than real upgrades, my iPhone 7 Plus being a prime example as I had an iPhone 6 Plus stolen shortly after getting it cheap on auction and then the iPhone 8 and X came out with nothing more than the Animoji stuff (which by the way killed a really great motion capture software my brother and I used on our film, “The Review”, after Apple bought it out) and now the most recent phones came out with the same 12MP camera and a slightly faster processor. That’s four generations of iPhones that are for all practical purposes the same phone with only minor differences and tweaks between them. The same went with their computers for the longest time but now with eGPU and advances in Thunderbolt, they look like great options! The Mac Mini is one of my favorites and I used to have a Mac Mini G4 for editing projects in college, it was great but not enough for heavy FCP7 work. So, this new Mac Mini looks like a major step in the right direction not only for Apple but for SFF computers in general, especially for moving beyond the usual 16GB memory limit.

As for old Macs, my Mac Pro 2007 still runs just fine and I’ve kept it on Snow Leopard for FCP7 and certain 32-bit effects plugins but I primarily use it for my iTunes machine on a Windows 7 Bootcamp partition. As a Windows PC, it’s phenomenal! It was for a long time my gaming PC until I needed to upgrade for work and, in particular, 3D modeling work. I dread the day I’ll have to retire it but if there’s enough spare parts I could possibly keep it going for another decade or more. As it is I only turn it on to download a new CD or back up my iPhone so that keeps it pretty well. I’m actually waiting for hard drive prices to go down so I can upgrade it to 2 or 4TB hard drives on the OSX side and just recently transferred the Windows Bootcamp partition to a 500GB Samsung SSD.

Other than that, I’ve mainly gone with the Hackintosh route for whenever I need something Mac-related which isn’t that often and I would rather prefer a dedicated Mac workstation for that, so hopefully these new Mac Pros that are coming out soon will be something special.

 

[Run&Gun]

If you think the iPhone X was only a "minor tweak" over the 7 or 7 plus, then I don't know what would make you happy. Apple has done lots of things over the years with the iPhones (and other hardware) that have ticked me off, but the X is the best phone I've ever owned(have a 7, too). Screaming fast processing, great camera, and the screen is absolutely gorgeous. You have to look at it as a whole. People always like to pick apart Mac's part by part, but as a whole cohesive machine, they almost always punch above their weight and just the user experience vs. the Windows user experience is worth the price of admission. I used Windows for probably 11 years before I made the switch to Mac and I pray I never have to go back.

 

[indiawilds]

If you think the iPhone X was only a "minor tweak" over the 7 or 7 plus, then I don't know what would make you happy. Apple has done lots of things over the years with the iPhones (and other hardware) that have ticked me off, but the X is the best phone I've ever owned(have a 7, too). Screaming fast processing, great camera, and the screen is absolutely gorgeous. You have to look at it as a whole. People always like to pick apart Mac's part by part, but as a whole cohesive machine, they almost always punch above their weight and just the user experience vs. the Windows user experience is worth the price of admission. I used Windows for probably 11 years before I made the switch to Mac and I pray I never have to go back.

I have used windows for some 18 years before I switched over. And I am really relaxed ever since.

 

[David Saraceno]

A lot of posts about being upset because Apple would not repair computers after the warranties had expired.

How many months after the warranty has expired should a company repair any product without cost? And how does any company stay in business with "lifetime warranty" repairs?

That' what warranties are. They are specific, and limited in time.

 

[Batutta]

Great! Please let me know what you're charging for a Mac Mini, using all the same components, and with a genuine copy of the latest operating system and all apps, and with a warranty at least as good as Apple's. Where can I buy this at your super-discounted price (as opposed to Apple's "massively overpriced" price?)

Their stuff is overpriced, if you're just basing it off the components. You get something for that price, nice aesthetics, compactness, maybe more reliability. But you could build an equivalent system that runs a genuine copy of the os and all apps for cheaper, it just won't look as nice. Actually, you could probably build an even better specced system for cheaper.

 

[legrevedotcom]

Their stuff is overpriced, if you're just basing it off the components. You get something for that price, nice aesthetics, compactness, maybe more reliability. But you could build an equivalent system that runs a genuine copy of the os and all apps for cheaper, it just won't look as nice. Actually, you could probably build an even better specced system for cheaper.

Thats one thing I never got.... why the hell buy a computer because it looks good? Thats some first grade hipster crap my respect has never increased towards someone because they sat by a nice computer.

My work uses iMac... i myself have a 2011 mbp I loved to death, but after I built my pc i 2015 I have never looked back and prefer to work on that over the comouters at work.
That notion that windows isnt stable doesnt hold water. Knock on wood i havent had any stability problems or virus problems a single time since I got it. And windows 10 runs just fine. Really dont care about asthetics.... its a tool. I wouldnt demand my hammer came with a silk coated handle.

 

[filmguy123]

I think some people get worked up on Apple's pricing because they feel that people don't understand that similar components could be purchased for much less either via custom build or competing brands running windows. Because knowing that something is not overpriced if people are willing to pay it (enter economics!), the only other solution must be that people are being duped - hence, the quest to help people understand, because if only people understood, Apple couldn't get away with the overpricing.

Enter the conundrum when they discover there are people who understand fully and either don't care, or find the extra cost worth it. I think this is hard to swallow - to run into people who fully get it, and still choose Apple.

I understand the TPM module that OSX looks for to validate booting the OS and how it can be overridden on a hackintosh (i've built a few back in the day). I understand windows 10 very well and had every edition since XP. I understand shopping for my parts at Fry's, Newegg, Amazon, or wherever else has a smoking deal - even before the internet, when it meant hunting down local computer stores and negotiating over motherboards and the first gen nvidia 3d accelerator ever. I understand how to repair and upgrade individual components and re-purpose things from PCs and how cost effective it can be. I understand the walled garden of apple, lack or repairability and upgradeability. I understand the teardowns and the componenets they source and their actual costs. I think Windows 10 is actually pretty great.

And yet I still like Apple computers, too, and their pricing does not offend me.

As Thomas suggested, let's seriously move on from that convo - I think most people here are well aware of their options and have made up their minds!

 

[filmguy123]

While I'd love to see a higher end GPU in the Mac Mini because it would flesh out use cases, I think the Mac Mini is more exciting of a product then ever thanks to external GPU options. It really opens the doors to be able to throw this little box in your suitcase and have a pretty fully powered device ready to go and plug into workstations.

I'll be interested to see what they do with the new Mac Pro. Because actually, this got me wishing there was a device a little bigger than the Mac Mini (but not as big as the trash can mac pro) that had a little more horsepower and a built in GPU - but still solid and portable. The performance and pricing may overall be a little too close to the high end Macbook Pro to really make sense except for certain scenarios, but I haven't fully thought that out.

What would you all use this for that would make it substantially better than either a cylinder mac pro, or a high end macbook pro?

 

[Tamerlin]

I don’t think I’ve ever had a Mac “break beyond repair” in the decades I’ve been using Mac hardware.

I have. And as much as I like OSX, the flakiest and most unreliable machine I've ever owned was my MacBook Pro Retina. It was one of the models that tended to unmount USB-connected disks under load...

Royal pain.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Their stuff is overpriced, if you're just basing it off the components. You get something for that price, nice aesthetics, compactness, maybe more reliability. But you could build an equivalent system that runs a genuine copy of the os and all apps for cheaper, it just won't look as nice. Actually, you could probably build an even better specced system for cheaper.

Yeah and I’m sure if I could buy all the parts I could build a car for less than a BMW as well. It isn’t just about components anymore but the overall user experience. 99% of computers owners even design and vid o professionals don’t really care what components a computer has. They buy a computer that gets the job done and creates as little of fricken to that process as possible.

Usability, less reliance on 3rd sofwatre, lack of bloatware, access to the real tools people use for low cost or free, hardware, repair and support options and so on are all things today that give users value when they buy a computer. That fact that most major cities have a well known and easy to access Apple store to get repairs is worth the extra cost alone. People don’t want to get hosed with repair costs like they do when they get their car repaired. Apple is honest and repairs only what is needed to repair and that right there adds tremendous value.

You also have to be very carefully to actually select the exact same kind of components. I frequently hear people say thy can build a PC fo less than the iMac a Pro and select desktop class CPUs and ram vs workstation class Xeon and ECC ram. They only look at the printed megahertz and publish ram speed and not what this server class components are designed for. Once you select similar parts for robustness the price gap shrinks considerably.

Even in the case of the IMac it isn’t that it is more expensive but that it forces you into specific parts. For example not everybody needs a 10bit p3 Color 5k display. So they could use a vastly cheaper 4k monitor with a PC and say it’s cheaper. It’s not th same thing however and spec for spec if you built a PC and added a 27” 10bit p3 color with 5k resolution I’m pretty sure the cost would get much closer. You also need to make sure you add speakers, a HD camera for video conferencing and so forth. You can’t just build a tower and not include everything else and say it’s cheaper. Well duh it is. So is the Mac Mini compared to the iMac because it removes all that extra stuff.

It also comes down to what hardware is needed is needed for the tools. Max Yuriv did a test between a monster PC and a top iMac where on paper the Pc should murder the iMac. It was also cheaper. Yet FCPX on the iMac handidly beat the PC and Premiere in almost every benchmark test that actually mattered. Not the synthetic tests but actually performing video related tasks. The reality is I can do more with a 4 core iMac than most can with a 6 core decked out PC and Premiere. I also find FCPX to perform better than Resolve on the sam system. So yes Resolve can do more when you give it a ton of hardware but sometim s a well made video editing experience can and should be about efficiency.

One also needs to factor in the cost of the tools used. Adobe users spend $600 per year while Apple users spend $400 for life. That adds up over time and many of us purchased FCPX and the other pro apps years ago. Even “if” we actually pay a couple hundred more for a comparable computer we end up spending much less over a 2, 3 or 4 year period. Premiere users spend $2,400 over four years while FCPX users only spend $400 in that same amount of time. Now who pays a tax? I’m still using FCPX on a 2011 MBP and a 2012 iMac both of which can edit 4k from my GH4. If I used Premiere I would have spent $4,200 over the seven years I have owneded the MBP.

Then there is the licensing fees for multiple systems. If a business has five editors they need to buy five subscriptions to Adobe at $3,000 per year. FCPX can be installed on up to five systems which makes that first year equal a $2,600 savings. Each year after that they would save $3,000.

There is absolutely no way no matter how much anybody skimps on specs, cuts corners or fudges the math that makes a PC with Premiere cost less than a Mac with FCPX. Resolve is a different story but you still need to buy a license for each system that uses Resolve and Resolve still requires more hardware to get the same effort done compared to FCPX.

We buy edit systems to get work done. That work entails timeline playback with effects without choking and rendering or outputting video for masters and delivery. FCPX can get all those tasks done with less hardware specs.

 

[Benjobe]

That' what warranties are. They are specific, and limited in time.

That's exactly correct. But someone could be confused by a lot of the posts in this thread which state that Apple will repair for free at any age of device. I was simply offering counter-evidence to that assertion.

 

[Batutta]

Max Yuriv did a test between a monster PC and a top iMac where on paper the Pc should murder the iMac. It was also cheaper. Yet FCPX on the iMac handidly beat the PC and Premiere in almost every benchmark test that actually mattered. Not the synthetic tests but actually performing video related tasks.

Max's test was flawed, because he used an Nvidia card and FCP X is optimized for AMD. Hackintoshers who edit have known for a while to use AMD cards for the best acceleration. They are also cheaper so he could have even saved a couple bucks there.

 

[Thomas Smet]

While I'd love to see a higher end GPU in the Mac Mini because it would flesh out use cases, I think the Mac Mini is more exciting of a product then ever thanks to external GPU options. It really opens the doors to be able to throw this little box in your suitcase and have a pretty fully powered device ready to go and plug into workstations.

I'll be interested to see what they do with the new Mac Pro. Because actually, this got me wishing there was a device a little bigger than the Mac Mini (but not as big as the trash can mac pro) that had a little more horsepower and a built in GPU - but still solid and portable. The performance and pricing may overall be a little too close to the high end Macbook Pro to really make sense except for certain scenarios, but I haven't fully thought that out.

What would you all use this for that would make it substantially better than either a cylinder mac pro, or a high end macbook pro?

I really think eGPU is the concept going forward. The power users cried and moaned about choices for years and now Apple is going back to providing choices. Don’t force the user to buy a GPU they don’t really want and let them get the one that works best for their needs. The Mini represents this thinking and really it’s no big deal if it doesn’t have a dedicated GPU. A rx580 eGPU that is the same as the top IMac can now be purchased for $500. The Mini plus eGPU can be had for $1,500 with a powerful GPU that puts every Mac under the iMac Pro to shame. Eventually users will be able to add two or three eGPUs easily as needed.

Plus it’s a desktop. I don’t really care how well the machine works without the eGPU attached because unless the dogs eat the TB cable it should never be disconnects. Laptops ar a different story because we do use them on the road and away from our desks. We still need a decent GPU in those situations. If it wasn’t for that I would be totally fine if there was a 15” with no dedicated GPU inside for $1,500. Would be cool to also have a top iMac with no dedicated GPU and use the cost savings towards a Vega 64 eGPU. That’s the one area where Macs like the iMac get annoying for some users. They can’t have the big screen and top CPU without also getting the top GPU along for the ride. When it comes to laptops some users have crappy eyes and might actually prefer a 17” dual core Mac with no GPU.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Max's test was flawed, because he used an Nvidia card and FCP X is optimized for AMD. Hackintoshers who edit have known for a while to use AMD cards for the best acceleration. They are also cheaper so he could have even saved a couple bucks there.

Huh? The test I’m talking about was a top iMac with the rx580 GPU and FCPX. You can’t use Nvidia with FCPX unless you do a hack to force a eGPU to work with Nvidia or have an old Mac Pro tower.

The PC had an Nvidia card to use with Premiere.

The test was not flawed at all and reflects what most of us have noticed for years. That FCPX dos some impressive stuff with modest specs.

 

[Batutta]

I really think eGPU is the concept going forward. The power users cried and moaned about choices for years and now Apple is going back to providing choices.

Power users won't be happy until there is a tower style desktop that is easily serviceable and has room for expansion. Apple had one in the past and it was well regarded. They are rumoured to be working on a Mac Pro like that for 2019, although there's been no official announcement, only whisperings of a 'modular' system.